And it is rhetoric like this that demonstrates why Garlasco cannot stay. In the future whenever Garlasco gets involved in a story, the story will soon become about him, about his judgement, whether he was naive or a secret Nazi sympathiser. A lot of the comment may be unfair but that’s beside the point. It will be said and it makes him a liability. That is why I am confident that he will leave HRW.

Only if they were as stupid as you. Garlasco is damaged goods. He can never write anything again about Israel without this story being raised. In fact he can’t really occupy any politically sensitive role again and certainly not one that involves calling Israel to account for its military actions. If HRW has any sense, they will find some face-saving formula and allow him to resign to spend more time with his medals.

Sorry David B, you missed the point. The point is that expert Marc Garlasco knew damn well that Flak88 could be either a reference to Hitler or to a Wermacht anti-aircraft gun and yet still chose to post under a double entendre moniker leaving the double meaning behind his screen name (and car license plates) an open question when posting to Nazi memorabilia online forums.

Do you David B think it’s benign for a Human Rights NGO “expert” to choose to post to German WW2 memorabilia sites under a screen name which is deliberately left ambiguous as to whether or not he was referring to himself as one who fancies himself either a Hitler enthusiast, a Wermacht anti-aircraft gun enthusiast, or both?

Lynn T: As far as your faith that “only idiots would fail to grasp that it’s not a good sign if a human rights investigator …”, you will have to reconcile yourself with the fact that those you call “only idiots” will succeed not only in reinstating Garlasco, but also in painting him as a courageous truth teller, whereas I and Mr. Grumpy won’t have to reconcile ourselves at all, because HRW, its sockpuppeteers; its pro Munich Massacre report writer; its Saudi fundraisers; its ME Division head who was an avid activist for the pro Arab, American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, who counts ISM’s Adam Shapiro and Counterpunch contributor Alison Weir (Weir contributed a defence of the Aftonbladet blood libel there) as Facebook friends and who is rumored to have deep admiration for Norman F!@#$%klestein; its Nazi fetishist trinket expert; its director who slings ad hominem smears at Irwin Cotler for having the audacity to question the UN Human Rights Council’s impartiality; and the large community of apologists including the NY Times who see nothing amiss at HRW and instead see any criticism of the dubious impartiality and credibility of HRW personnel as an organized smear by a powerful cabal to deflect attention away from “criticism” of Israel, leave me no room to be disappointed any further.

The Zionist Entity Lobby™ apparently thought they were addressing a shortcoming in HRW’s ME section that a broad spectrum of people would find troubling when considering the credibility of HRW ME section reports on Israel. But they were wrong, as The NY Times and The Guardian show: the issue was never about HRW’s ME section’s credibility, rather it was always about the suspect credibility of anyone who would agree with the machinations of a right wing transnational consortium of brazen and disproportionately powerful apologists and propagandists directed by a foreign government to smear both a keen WW2 military history student and memorabilia expert and Human Rights at large.

As for Garlasco, he’ll be crowing about this episode, the most stimulating and widest public exposure he’s experienced to date, for years to come.

But in the end, if it’s any consolation, the NY Times’ and The Guardian’s “right wing” Zionist Entity Lobby™ will have claimed if not a full pound of Saint Garlasco’s flesh, then at least a few ounces of it, in this issue-free war between what the NY Times and Guardian see instead as a battle between the good (Human Rights and keen students of WW2 military history and collectors and experts in the field of WW2 memorabilia and artifacts) against the bad (a disproportionately powerful right wing syndicate propagandizing for a foreign government).

That’s because Marc Garlasco will likely be instructed to desist from ever again posting online under his cherished screen name Flak88 and *gasp*, HRW’s PR and legal advisors might even insist that he remove the Flak88 plates from his automobile that he takes pride in.

I’m not consoled. It’s more like my eyes want to spit.

Why did it take HRW a week to do this?

HRW behaved exactly like every government, local authority, organisation etc. in this situation once serious and well-supported accusations have been made against central member of the staff:

1. Shoot at the messenger, question his motives.

2. Defend “your” person against straw allegations, not the true ones.

3. Bluster it out: something will happen, the news will be taken over…

4. Suspend the person on full pay and institute internal enquiry.

5. Now you have three or more months to repeat point 3 at your leisure.

6. If the story didn’t die out, amicably part ways (with or without golden parachute) with Mr Embarrassment. Don’t issue press release.

7. Think wistfully how better had it been had you taken an immediate action once the allegations have surfaced.

These are the laws of physics. HRW is subject to them like every other outfit in this position. They are now in stage 4.